Spotify isn't sucked into PR firestorms very often. Unsurprisingly, a digital platform designed to play you the new Ariana Grande single is usually less controversial than one designed to deliver you inflammatory political commentary a la Facebook or Twitter. So when Spotify got embroiled in controversy last week after Neil Young and Joni Mitchell pulled their music from the platform to protest the vaccine misinformation propagated by Spotify-exclusive podcaster Joe Rogan, I was intrigued to see how CEO Daniel Ek would respond. Was he going to have open ears and push for drastic changes at the company? Was he going to lay low and let this blow over? Was he going to, God forbid, outright defend Joe Rogan?
But instead of coming up with his own solution, which is obviously super inefficient and boring, Ek decided to just Control-C and Control-V from the Zuckerberg and Dorsey Fake News Playbook™, announcing that Spotify will address the issue by adding a "content advisory" warning to any podcast episode that discusses COVID-19. He explained that this decision was made in an effort to keep Spotify from becoming a "content censor" and promote their view that "listening is everything."
First, let me say that I applaud Spotify for at least doing something to address this controversy so quickly, and I fully agree that any truly neutral platform should avoid becoming a content censor at all costs. But outside of that, I think Spotify's response is mostly horse crap. In my opinion, Spotify has lost all rights to make a defense of, "We don't want to be a content censor," for two reasons.
First, as I wrote in my piece on Section 230, I think any platform that employs an algorithm to personally recommend content to users must take some ownership of the content it's promoting. Only neutral platforms designed to be little more than digital forums or content libraries should be able to claim they are not responsible for the content hosted on their sites. The minute these platforms begin to parse through data and feed it to the most opportune users is the minute these platforms should lose their right to this defense. They have crossed the line from platform to publisher, and publishers can and should be held liable for what they publish. Joe Rogan is a highly recommended and promoted podcaster throughout Spotify, and therefore Spotify must take some ownership of what he says on his podcast.
Secondly, it's not like Spotify didn't specifically choose Joe Rogan as their podcasting racehorse and give him a $100 million contract to gallop them into audio ubiquity and profitability. Spotify actively chose Joe Rogan as a voice to anchor their podcasting service, and Spotify needs to understand the implications that such an endorsement has. When you make someone a face of your brand, you are giving them a piece of your brand's halo, and you are giving an aura of credibility to whatever content your users consume that was created by that person. I respect Spotify for not wanting to censor content, but there's a big gap between "not censoring content" and spending $100 million to get the exclusive distribution rights to that content. Once you spend that money, you are endorsing the content whether you like it or not. And let's not pretend like whatever this newest doctor said on Joe Rogan is anything crazier than what's been said in the past on his shows. Spotify did their research, understood the risk, and actively signed up for that risk, so they should have to own the consequences too.
Not to mention the idea of adding a content warning to all podcasts discussing COVID-19 is pretty ridiculous anyways. The problem isn't podcasts discussing COVID-19; the problem is podcasts telling lies about COVID-19. When it comes to widespread public safety, I'm sick and tired of hearing about how we're going to let anyone with a microphone onto the soapbox because we want to "give a voice to everyone." When something a) significantly damages public safety and b) can demonstrably be proven false with over 99.9% certainty, that voice should be blocked. It's not censorship; it's citizenship. The First Amendment doesn't apply in these cases, as these are private companies. Blocking some voices could ruin our country fast, but at the rate we're going, misinformation would almost surely ruin it faster.
Joe Rogan isn't the devil. I think he's ignorant, but there are worse voices on the internet. But this whole situation is indicative of a fundamental problem America has in addressing our misinformation crises, and these CEOs need to begin taking a stronger stance sooner than later. If the country goes down, the companies go down with it.
Commenti